Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
For a long time now, Scotland has been very proud of it's history and is actively encouraged to be proud about it. On the flip side, to be a proud Englishman is to attract labels of "racist", "bigot" etc simply for wanting to fly the flag. If anything, it is England that needs to reclaim it's history, for Scotland has never had a problem being proud.

In fact, only today right here on ATS, some moron saw my avatar and made the assumption I was a skinhead, chanting "ENGERLAND!!" who read the Daily Mail and hated brown people.... Simply for me saying I am a proud Englishman!!

No one would ever say that to someone who had a "Proud Scotsman" tag...

As an American, I know nothing of what you speak of. I have never seen it nor heard it. So to post an opinion on the matter would be to do so blindly. From what I have read and seen though, the entire UK is all but being overrun with Muslims seeking asylum while people with honest roots are barred entry. If that's what you're speaking of (the Scottish issue aside), it's a problem with the immigration policy.



Wooooah.. Hang on. There is no "head of the Union". The Union is simply that, a union, all for one etc. If anyone perceives one country to be the "head" over another, then that's an external problem, not one we created.

Not one you created? Let's be honest here for a moment, England doesn't exactly have the best history when it comes to peaceful solutions. You can call the woman sitting on your throne a figurehead all you want, but the fact is, the royal family has been anything but a figurehead in times past. There is a brutal and bloody past that dates all the way back to the Roman Empire associated with the English monarch. Such things are not easily forgotten especially when the biggest crimes were committed against your own colonies.



If anything, England is the ignored party. Scotland has a Parliament. Northern Ireland has an Assembly. Wales has an assembly. England? Nothing. Scots MP's in Westminster can vote on English Law, but the reverse is not true
.

I wonder then what exactly England is getting out of this deal?



Lost our Queen? Did you not read my last post? A Scottish King ascended the throne in the 17th Century from an English monarch, prior to the Scots requesting a Union. Again, a twisted version of history being played out here.

And the Scottish have lost their King. The only royalty remaining within the UK is the English Queen. That is why people outside of the UK see England as the head of the union. Now I can't speak for the Scots, but that in itself would be something that bothered me personally. America never had a King. The only King we ever had tried to kill us.

With that said, is it really such a surprise that a Scottish King ascended to the throne? Since Billy the Bastard on you've had nothing but either Norman or German royalty. Say what you want about the Scots, and I'll be blunt, at least they have stayed true to their roots.



And also, if people outside the UK think of England when the UK is mentioned, that's from their ignorance, not our doing. Our last two PM's prior to Cameron (Scottish descent btw) were Scots.

Does it really matter who the PM is? I mean, honestly, does it really matter? You still have your German Queen sitting on the throne. If I were English (which I technically am considering I have English blood), I'd much rather have a Scot on the throne than a German. Then again, she's only a figurehead right? ...yet she means so much.



It is a total myth (and downright malicious in fact) to try and paint out like England has somehow been the superior partner. The only way this ever bear5s any fruit is by looking at Westminster and seeing most MP's coming from England, but then 75% of the UK's population is in England. it would be wholly undemocratic to give more seats (and in fact, Scots Westminster seats are disproportionate anyway) to the smaller nations.

So what is the point of the union then? I still don't understand what England gets out of this deal aside from, well, control and stability. If this is such an issue then why not let it go?



Having said that, the Scots especially have enjoyed an enormous amount of influence in the UK and were the biggest proponents of Empire in the 19th century (while the English get the bad name for it). We've had a slew of Scots PM's over the years too (and the English get a bad name for what Blair and Brown did too)

The English get the bad name for it because English royalty has a bad reputation. At the end of the day, one has to realize what has been done in the name of your monarch. And the proud Englishman just can't do that. I wonder if America would still be an English colony if not for a tyrant on a power trip?




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dishonored

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Dishonored
 


As an American, reading what you have said, it would appear you don't really understand what is going on or the history..

What on earth do you mean by the "freedom it truly (and finally) deserves.. In your mind, how do you think Scotland became part of the Union? Do you think England conquered them?

No, but I do know that war has been waged before between England and Scotland.

Wars of Scottish Independence

The First War (1296–1328) began with the English invasion of Scotland in 1296
The Second War (1332–1357) began with the English-supported invasion of Edward Baliol and the "Disinherited" in 1332, and ended in 1357 with the signing of the Treaty of Berwick.

Anglo-Scottish Wars

During the mid fifteenth century there were many conflicts on the border of England and Scotland, most notably the Battle of Sark.
England under Henry VIII declared war on France in 1512 (as part of the larger conflict known as the War of the League of Cambrai). James IV of Scotland invaded England in fulfilment of his alliance with France (even though married to Henry's sister Margaret).
War broke out in 1541. Once again there were preliminary border skirmishes, but when James sent a large army into England, its leadership was weak and divided and it suffered a humbling defeat at the Battle of Solway Moss.

The point is, the nations weren't always the best of friends. That's not to say that they shouldn't continue to have good relations, but, in my opinion, Scotland has earned it's right to be independent of the UK if it's people so choose. I just don't understand why people are so against a simple vote?


The biggest enemy of the Scottish people, through history, has been the Scottish ruling classes themselves. Scottish history is as much a history of internal division, sectarian strife and treachery as anything. Scotland ,when a nation state, had a parliament but it was not a parliament like the one we currently enjoy. Power was wielded by the nobles and the clergy.

These powerful interests bankrupted themselves through a failed attempt at founding a Scottish colony in Panama. This is known as the 'Darien disaster'. Through their incompetence the scottish ruling class bankrupted themselves. The act of union was the way in which those people could use english deep pockets to bail themselves out through merging with their english counterparts.

The union of the crown is best thought of as a corporate merger agreed by bosses despite extremely reluctant and mistrusting workforces (with rioting by the populace in Edinburgh when it was signed).

Despite the inauspicious beginning its worked out well.

Only somebody who hasn't really read through scottish history (the non hollywood version) would think giving all the power back to a Scottish political class is the road to future prosperity.






edit on 16-10-2012 by justwokeup because: typos



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Mate its the England tax that pays for scotland

Scottish income tax revenue as a percentage of UK is 7.4% national insurance revenue is 8.3%

Total revenue for UK per Scottish capital is 8.3℅

Revenue spent in Scotland per capital was approximately 10.2% higher than UK average for 2000 to 2010



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
The biggest enemy of the Scottish people, through history, has been the Scottish ruling classes themselves. Scottish history is as much a history of internal division, sectarian strife and treachery as anything. Scotland ,when a nation state, had a parliament but it was not a parliament like the one we currently enjoy. Power was wielded by the nobles and the clergy.

These powerful interests bankrupted themselves through a failed attempt at founding a Scottish colony in Panama. This is known as the 'Darien disaster'. Through their incompetence the scottish ruling class bankrupted themselves. The act of union was the way in which those people could use english deep pockets to bail themselves out through merging with their english counterparts.

The union of the crown is best thought of as a corporate merger agreed by bosses despite extremely reluctant and mistrusting workforces (with rioting by the populace in Edinburgh when it was signed).

Despite the inauspicious beginning its worked out well.

Only somebody who hasn't really read through scottish history (the non hollywood version) would think giving all the power back to a Scottish political class is the road to future prosperity.


Did the American colonies think the most prosperous road to take would be to take on the royal navy without even so much as a Navy or standing Army to back them up? I doubt it considering most wanted to side with the crown. Sure, the French helped, but those men knew that they were signing their death certificate if the revolution didn't pan out. The point is, some things are worth the struggle.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Dishonored because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I would like to see that. Very worthy people IMO. Need to shine.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dishonored

Originally posted by justwokeup
The biggest enemy of the Scottish people, through history, has been the Scottish ruling classes themselves. Scottish history is as much a history of internal division, sectarian strife and treachery as anything. Scotland ,when a nation state, had a parliament but it was not a parliament like the one we currently enjoy. Power was wielded by the nobles and the clergy.

These powerful interests bankrupted themselves through a failed attempt at founding a Scottish colony in Panama. This is known as the 'Darien disaster'. Through their incompetence the scottish ruling class bankrupted themselves. The act of union was the way in which those people could use english deep pockets to bail themselves out through merging with their english counterparts.

The union of the crown is best thought of as a corporate merger agreed by bosses despite extremely reluctant and mistrusting workforces (with rioting by the populace in Edinburgh when it was signed).

Despite the inauspicious beginning its worked out well.

Only somebody who hasn't really read through scottish history (the non hollywood version) would think giving all the power back to a Scottish political class is the road to future prosperity.


Did the American colonies think the most prosperous road to take would be to take on the royal navy without even so much as a Navy or standing Army to back them up? I doubt it considering most wanted to side with the crown. Sure, the French helped, but those men knew that they were signing their death certificate if the revolution didn't pan out. The point is, some things are worth the struggle.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Dishonored because: (no reason given)


Some things are. I just believe passionately that this isn't and my country would be better of as part of the UK.

I expect many arguments in the next 2 years.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
What's in it for England, Wales and NI? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. The UK will be down 5 million of it's 60 million population. That won't really negatively affect the UK in terms of buying power or influence. It would be Scotland that is the loser on that count. I don't actually know the true financial figures. Some say Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK, others say Scotland pays more in tax than it receives back. I don't know which to believe. There seems to be some belief that north sea oil revenues will give Scotland a financial boost but this is a limited resource that won't last forever. The UK and Scotland don't need to remain linked for any reasons relating to stability, we're not about to go to war with each other or anything of that nature. The main problem I see is cost of unravelling everything and the time spent and the level of distraction created and the many levels of individuals and families being somehow negatively affected especially in the current climate when there are more important challenges facing most of the world. And ultimately, all this when neither the UK or Scotland is going to be magically creating extra wealth or new fantastic ways of running either country that will make this whole thing worthwhile. This is all for people like Salmond. I don't even think the majority of Scotland wants to split from the UK, the SNP only got voted in because they wanted a change from the Labour party and the Conservates are a none option.

To put in into terms for American readers, it would be something like the equivelant population wise of Texas or New York deciding they wanted to become independant. It wouldn't be the end of the world but it might be annoyingly inconvenient and maybe even unwanted for historical or reasons of pure sentiment. And also, you have to admit that you are stronger together when facing the world stage.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-10-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-10-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jargonaut
What's in it for England, Wales and NI? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. The UK will be down 5 million of it's 60 million population. That won't really negatively affect the UK in terms of buying power or influence. It would be Scotland that is the loser on that count. I don't actually know the true financial figures. Some say Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK, others say Scotland pays more in tax than it receives back. I don't know which to believe. There seems to be some belief that north sea oil revenues will give Scotland a financial boost but this is a limited resource that won't last forever. The UK and Scotland don't need to remain linked for any reasons relating to stability, we're not about to go to war with each other or anything of that nature. The main problem I see is cost of unravelling everything and the time spent and the level of distraction created and the many levels of individuals and families being somehow negatively affected especially in the current climate when there are more important challenges facing most of the world.

To put in into terms for American readers, it would be something like the equivelant population wise of Texas or New York deciding they wanted to become independant. It wouldn't be the end of the world but it might be annoyingly inconvenient and maybe even unwanted for historical or reasons of pure sentiment. And also, you have to admit that you are stronger together when facing the world stage.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-10-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)


To be honest, I don't think the UK or an independent Scotland needs to worry much about protection in terms of the world stage. America and the EU are all but tied at the hip. With that said, I do expect to see states within America choose to secede in the next few years. What our government chooses to do about it will be a defining moment when it does happen. Texas actually recently had thoughts about it if I remember correctly.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Dishonored because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Dishonored
 


There are some situations that come up where countries don't get backing of institutions such as Nato or the UN. The Falklands for example. Maybe Scotland is fortunate enough not to have any disputed teritories though, I don't know. But anyway, numbers don't just count for military might. America wields it's combined financial power to gain extraordinary influence financially and politically worldwide.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dishonored
 




As an American, I know nothing of what you speak of. I have never seen it nor heard it. So to post an opinion on the matter would be to do so blindly


A refreshingly honest statement.



From what I have read and seen though, the entire UK is all but being overrun with Muslims seeking asylum


Whilst creeping Islamification is certainly a growing concern for many within the UK and it requires urgent attention the problem is nowhere near as desperate as some would have you believe.



Not one you created? Let's be honest here for a moment, England doesn't exactly have the best history when it comes to peaceful solutions.


And therein lies the problem - it's the UK together, not just England!



There is a brutal and bloody past that dates all the way back to the Roman Empire associated with the English monarch. Such things are not easily forgotten especially when the biggest crimes were committed against your own colonies.


The British Empire was a damn sight less brutal and repressive than empires of other European countries - take a few minutes and look at the atrocities carried out by the Spanish, French and the Belgians were particularly harsh in their treatment of their colonies.

Yet it is 'England' alone that is singled out for particular condemnation.
Why?

All empires throughout history have been built on the blood and exploitation of defeated nations - The BRITISH Empire was no different.
Scotland was a full and willing partner in The Empire - in fact many Scotsmen were at the forefront of it's growth and development.



I wonder then what exactly England is getting out of this deal?


Simply put - we are Better Together.



And the Scottish have lost their King


Not at all - King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England are one and the same man.



. The only royalty remaining within the UK is the English Queen.


But she isn't the 'English Queen', she is The British Queen or to give her full title;
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith or as Devid Steel called her during the opening of the Scottish Parliament;

"not only the Queen of the United Kingdom but seated as you are among us in the historic and constitutionally correct manner as Queen of Scots."


Quite clearly she is most definately NOT The Queen Of England.



That is why people outside of the UK see England as the head of the union.


Why, you haven't explained anything.

All the constituent parts of The Union are equal partners.



With that said, is it really such a surprise that a Scottish King ascended to the throne? Since Billy the Bastard on you've had nothing but either Norman or German royalty.


And how offended would you be, and how innacurate would I be, if I said that the USA now had an African President?



Say what you want about the Scots, and I'll be blunt, at least they have stayed true to their roots.


And what roots would they be?
Please do expound on this.



Does it really matter who the PM is? I mean, honestly, does it really matter?


It matters a damn sight more who the PM is rather than who The Queen or King is - seems to me and many other Brits that Americans are more pre-occupied with our monarchy than we are - we find them a quaint irrelevance.



...... then why not let it go?


Err.....that's the purpose of the referendum - for Scotland to decide what it wants to do - it's not a question of 'letting it go' but rather a question of whether they want to or not - is that too hard to understand?



The English get the bad name for it because English royalty has a bad reputation.


British royalty.



At the end of the day, one has to realize what has been done in the name of your monarch.


And that is the responsibility etc of those of us alive today?

If so then I pity the descendants of Americans alive today!



I wonder if America would still be an English colony if not for a tyrant on a power trip?


America was never an English colony - it was a British colony.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jargonaut
 


The Shetland and Orkney Islands are already suggesting that depending on the exact details of the result of the referendum they may demand to remain within The Union - I wonder how Salmond would respond if that happens?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
As an Englishmen I'm not really too sure how I feel about Scottish Independence. I certainly believe the Scots should be given a fair and open referendum on the issue, but also that they should be allowed the independent and impartial information they need to make an informed decision. Any choice should not be forced or hurried, and I'd also like NI, England and Wales to be allowed similar votes, as well as a UK wide referendum on the EU.

I think government should be brought closer to the people at every level, and Scottish independence would be a step closer for the Scots towards that goal. On the other hand, I think as a planet we need to be pulling together not apart, uniting as one in a way that is sustainable but also voluntary. As long as it is beneficial, fair and the people want it, then I'd support further integration and loosening of borders across the globe rather than the opposite. However, things like the UN and EU are nothing more than bad jokes, and do nothing to help the ordinary people of this planet.

At the moment, looking at the issue realistically, I think I'd prefer to see a more federal UK with maximum devolution of powers at every level, with national parliaments in NI, Scotland, England and Wales deciding all the but the most critical of issues like defence and international relations. That would solve the so-called West Lothian Question and bring politics closer to home for everyone. Smaller issues like policing and housing could be handled at an even more local level than that, the competition, let's say between counties or local councils, would do us all good. I'd also dissolve the monarchy, reform Westminsiter, implement more direct democracy and abolish nukes whilst I was at it, but that's just me.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaltireWarrior
I do not regard the UK as beign democratic. I mean in the whole of Scotland we elected 1 Conservative MP and now we have a Conservative PM.

The sad reality is that when England speaks, the rest of us have to follow.


As others have said though this is not just about Scotland. It has massive ramifications for the rest of the UK.

The north of England and the Midlands, Northern Ireland and Wales would be severely impacted by the loss of the Scottish MPs at Westminster. Generally speaking the Celtic parts of the UK and the North all have a slightly more social democratic view of life. We didn't vote for a Tory either!

Scottish independence would weaken Scotland and the rest of the UK. Scotland would hold about as much influence as Norway does internationally whilst the rest of the UK's bargaining position within Europe would also be weakened against the French/German power axis that exists in the EU.

Most of all though we'd be so wrapped in the bureaucracy of dividing up all the national organisations and embassies abroad etc that we it would create years of distraction. Finally that most iconic of symbols the Union Flag would have to go and that would cost a fortune.

I'm all for Scots having more say on how Scotland is run, but I don't think they should be the ones to have all the say on "divorce"

I think the UK is stronger as the family of nations we are. But we need to move forward with new political ideas. Reforming the House of Lord would be a start.





edit on 16/10/12 by mirageman because: grammar



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six6Six
I absolutely love this peace of news.

I am English born and raised in London. Its about time we let the Scottish "people" gain independence from the UK.


Londom,well that explains that then.


I have no liking for the country of Scotland what-so-ever. They are a drain on the economy, they FAIL at everything they put their hands too and they generally suck as a country. If anything we need to put a wall around out border and block out these perpetual drug taking people from entering England again. They have zero chance of surviving and with no real economy or armed forces or even a basic grasp of the English language they will be placed at the bottom of all irrelevant things the UK and mainly England has had the displeasure of being associated with.



I can not explain in words clear enough how bad Scotland sucks at being a country. If you walk around the center of Glasgow you really get to understand the depths people can sink to in life.

And no one from Scotland come on here and talk about the oil....you will never have the run of it. Once you are independent you will be pushed out of any deal, have zero way of enfoceing anything and the only form of intelligence gathering your country will be able to conduct is how many crac pipes lie in doorways of shops and bus stops. Good riddance to Scotland.


you know something i was going to reply to this thread saying that we shouldnt vote with our hearts.(know exactly what you mean,bigyin) but after reading this i'm off to find my claymore !!!

You come from London and have the neck to slag off Glasgow !!!!

Aye ok we'll go our seperate ways shall we cos the truth of the Uk was always Scottish brains plus Highland and Irish regiments backed by English money.

Enjoy your money then,you'll have less without Scotland.

And build your wall like you did before,oh aye sorry the Romans built it for you.


Plus,I read another post that said Scotland was never subegated by the English and requested union.

Mm Highlands certainly were,what do you think Fört William,Fort George,Fort Augustus,General Wades Road were about.

As for requested Union.Look into the Darian Project which failed with a little English involvement.

When you offer a man dying of starvation some bread ??

Did he take it to survive or objectively,rationally request it of free will ??
edit on 16/10/12 by fastbob72 because: sorting my quotations



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I await with trepidation what the border controls - should Scotland become a seperate country (I think it's very unlikely) - might be. Will there be uncontrolled movement. Or will we need passes?

I know a few Scots who support independence.

I refuse on principle to get a 'photo ID' card or any shape or form

My Scottish friends who support independence will not like the fact that I can no longer go home to the Highlands, nor run the Scottish charity of which I am an Trustee. Indeed, they will be outraged .....

Lots of issues to be decided. It won't be easy. And some who think they win will lose.

But I think the vote will fail.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
And therein lies the problem - it's the UK together, not just England!

To a point, yes.



The British Empire was a damn sight less brutal and repressive than empires of other European countries - take a few minutes and look at the atrocities carried out by the Spanish, French and the Belgians were particularly harsh in their treatment of their colonies.

Yet it is 'England' alone that is singled out for particular condemnation.
Why?


I ask you a question. Do you support the actions of the tyrant that forced the American colonies into revolution? Because I honestly don't believe that you do. Let me ask you another question. If time has really stopped the resentment on both parties of 2 wars, why is it still that neither Brit nor American can move between land for longer than a given time even though we are allies? Is it simply political nonsense or is there something deeper? I don't know the answer to that.

What I do know is that I have English blood in my veins. My grandmother served England in ww2 and was born in London. I can't stay in England for more than 6 months without being deported yet the Muslims walk right in and call their new land home. Tell me that is justice. Explain to me why I am being punished for being an American or why a Brit would be punished if they had family in America when we're supposed to be allies?

Why is England singled out? Because, honestly, who hasn't England started a war with within the EU?



All empires throughout history have been built on the blood and exploitation of defeated nations - The BRITISH Empire was no different.
Scotland was a full and willing partner in The Empire - in fact many Scotsmen were at the forefront of it's growth and development.


Scotland was all but forced into the agreement by their own stupidity. We both know that's true.



Simply put - we are Better Together.


If you honestly believe that to be the only reason then I have ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.




Not at all - King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England are one and the same man.


King James was not what I was talking about. The Scots have lost their monarch while yours still sits on the throne. You can give her a different title all you want, but there is no justice in it.




Quite clearly she is most definately NOT The Queen Of England.



The rest of the world calls her The Queen of England.



All the constituent parts of The Union are equal partners.


Yet have no royalty.



And how offended would you be, and how innacurate would I be, if I said that the USA now had an African President?


Offended? I don't like Obama. I think he is a joke. Call him whatever you want. I certainly didn't vote for him.



And what roots would they be?
Please do expound on this.


The Scots, The Irish and The Welsh are native to those Isles. The English are not. You know your own history well enough.



British royalty.


German royalty.



And that is the responsibility etc of those of us alive today?

If so then I pity the descendants of Americans alive today!


No you are not responsible. I have no issue with Brits. But I will call a spade a spade. You cannot deny your own history even if you are not to blame for it.

Everything else I agree with.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Who actually cares about Scotland anyway, we in England don't?

Do Americans give a two hoots about what Mexico wants? Same thing.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
The real problems will be stuff such as having to use the Euro as currency and the fact that the military will pull out and possible demob all Scottish members of the armed forces/spy services etc along with all the jobs that are dependent on them and in theory theres no way of knowing what the Scot's government may decide to do so perhaps some of the bigger companies will pull out due to possible legal/tax issues

But lets allow them the opportunity to do something even if it does turn out to be the biggest stupid thing since wireless bunge jumping was invented



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Dishonored
 




I ask you a question. Do you support the actions of the tyrant that forced the American colonies into revolution?


Honestly - I don't care - it's completely irrelevant to me.
It happened and regardless of the rights or wrongs of it there is nothing any of us can do about it.

Tyrants have committed far worse throughout history.

Americans did what they saw fit and right to do - and fair play to them for that.
The American Revolution proved that many of the more liberal and progressive ideas, most of which originated in Europe, could indeed be put into practice.

And I have to say that 'no taxation without representation' seems fair enough to me.

But I fail to see what the relevance is here.



If time has really stopped the resentment on both parties of 2 wars, why is it still that neither Brit nor American can move between land for longer than a given time even though we are allies?


I for one hold no resentment towards the USA for gaining it's independance - in fact I can honestly say I've never heard anyone express that sentiment.
Sure, there are some with anti-US leanings but that's another thing altogether.

I don't know much about travel restricions / limitations etc to the USA - but to be honest with you it seems a damn sight harder to gain entry to the USA than it is to enter the UK.
May be that just depends which perspective you are looking at it - but again - where's the relevance?



What I do know is that I have English blood in my veins. My grandmother served England in ww2 and was born in London. I can't stay in England for more than 6 months without being deported yet the Muslims walk right in and call their new land home. Tell me that is justice. Explain to me why I am being punished for being an American or why a Brit would be punished if they had family in America when we're supposed to be allies?


Do you have any close relatives who are English?
How long can I stay in the USA before I'm kicked out?

There are many problems and faults with the UK's open door immigration policy which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency - but race or creed should never be a factor.



Why is England singled out? Because, honestly, who hasn't England started a war with within the EU?


Or put it another way, who hasn't started a war with Britain? (You just don't get it do you).
Why do you assume that Britain started all the wars?

Who haven't we had wars with?
Well, off the top of my head I'd say Portugal, possibly Greece, not sure about former Yugoslavian countries and ex Soviet nations etc.



Scotland was all but forced into the agreement by their own stupidity. We both know that's true.


That most definately is NOT true.
After Scotland's failed attempt at imperialism, which the Scots blamed on lack of English finacial support, leaders in Scotland approached England with an offer of Union.
That is historical fact.
I'm in no way suggesting that the ordinary Scot wanted Union, but let's face it, not many of us at all had any sort of say in anything back in 1707.

There was no enforcement or coersion at all.
And Scotland reaped many benefits from that Union.

If Scotland now feels they are better off outside the Union then so be it, it's their choice.



King James was not what I was talking about. The Scots have lost their monarch while yours still sits on the throne. You can give her a different title all you want, but there is no justice in it.


I'm sorry, it may be me being a simpleton but I haven't got a clue what you are tying to say here.



The rest of the world calls her The Queen of England.


No they don't - no-one in The Commonwealth calls her that - and the people that do call her that are wrong.



The Scots, The Irish and The Welsh are native to those Isles. The English are not. You know your own history well enough.


Genetically there is very little difference between the vast majority of people who live in The British Isles.



No you are not responsible. I have no issue with Brits. But I will call a spade a spade. You cannot deny your own history even if you are not to blame for it.


And I would never deny our heritage - there is much that we British should be proud of.
Sure, there's a few things which reflect bad on us as a nation but on the whole I think the good far outweighs the bad.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
For me i would love to see all the union stay together. Each country bring unique things to the table that help each other out.

But until it happens, which we cannot say at the moment, we will never know the outcome!

If the Scots do get independence would we still share certain thing such as the armed forces. Or would all the Scottish regiments be 'sent home' and vice versa for the Union?

Also, what about the Navy, will that be diced up so Scotland get 20% of it? I'm pretty sure the Nuclear Deterrent would be shared amongst the nations, all the effort that has been implemented by Scotland and the rest of the Union is huge. Also, is there anywhere us 'British' could host the Subs if we retained 100% control of them (Humber, Severn, Cumbria, Tyneside)?

Many things will have to be looked at.

To me, i think it's important that trade and freedom of movement between every UK country stays as it is.


As far as the armed forces are concerned Scotland would have a small navy with about four frigates, a few offshore patrol boats and some minesweepers. Trident submarines would move to England.

A small air force would be based around a couple of squadrons of Hawk trainers with a few maritime surveillance aircraft and some transports, while a Scottish army would have two brigades equipped only with light fighting vehicles, with no tanks. (Oh no! no more Gary: Tank Commander, I love that show.
)


Read the whole article: www.thesun.co.uk...

I wouldn't bother listening to Polls right now, it's way too early. I haven't yet signed the declaration myself but you can be sure I will do in the coming days.





top topics
 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join